Surface Laptop review: Microsoft’s most baffling release yet is just a laptop

After several years of building systems that compete with, but aren't quite, laptops, Microsoft has built a plain old laptop: the Surface Laptop.

I think there's a good chance that the Surface Laptop will become Microsoft's best-selling piece of PC hardware. This is such a straightforward proposition: it's a regular PC laptop. It has no trickery; no tear-off keyboard, no special hinge, no detachable GPU, none of the other things that have made the Surface Pro, Surface Book, and Surface Studio notable or unusual. It can't be said any plainer: Surface Laptop is just a PC laptop.

This makes Microsoft's latest offering an easier sell than the other Surface hardware. Potential buyers don't need to learn and understand how a new kind of device will fit into their lives, because they already know how they use laptops. As such, I expect sales will be vigorous.

There's a flip side to this, of course. Surface Laptop is also the least compelling, least interesting piece of hardware Microsoft has put out—to such an extent that I'm baffled by the process that went into its creation. Surface Laptop does not advance the state of PC hardware; it does not explore new form factors or designs; it does not serve as a showcase for Windows 10.

Surface Laptop is singularly unambitious. I'd call it conservative, but I think even that is too generous. Companies like HP, Dell, and Lenovo are doing more to make PC hardware better, to make Windows 10 better, and to embrace new technology than Microsoft is doing with Surface Laptop. Surface Laptop is a brand new machine, and yet in a number of ways, I feel it has already been left behind by the rest of the market.

A better MacBook Air

If we accept that Surface Laptop is not even remotely attempting to advance the state of the art, the system is a competent entrant into the laptop space. The hardware is attractive, blending design cues from previous Surface systems—the lid looks almost identical to that of the Surface Book, with its square edges, rounded corners, and shiny version of the Microsoft logo—with some elements to make it a better laptop. The base portion isn't all parallel lines and flat faces. There are angles, tapers, and chamfers.

The system I was sent to review was in the standard platinum colour. Every configuration is available in this colour, but one system spec—i5 processor, 8GB RAM, 256GB storage—is also available in Burgundy, Cobalt Blue, and Graphite Gold. Later this year, a second spec (i7 processor, 16GB RAM, 512GB storage) will also be available in those colours. But right now, those systems are only available in platinum.

The Surface Laptop shows its Surface pedigree. The screen has a rather peculiar resolution—2256×1504 with a 13.5-inch diagonal—but it has Surface's now familiar 3:2 aspect ratio, ten-finger touch, and pen support. It's bright and crisp and a pleasure to use. The screen also includes a 720p camera with Windows Hello facial recognition support. This has been well optimised in the Surface Laptop. The time taken to wake from sleep and turn on the camera has been streamlined so that there's no delay between opening the lid and logging in with your face.

The keyboard is a close sibling, perhaps even identical, to the ones in the latest Type Covers, and it's none the worse for this. Key travel is respectable, the key action is very crisp, and it's easy and precise to type on. The touchpad also has the usual Surface characteristics: smooth glass surface, respectable size, and good precision and accurate detection of the Precision Touchpad gestures.

Coors aside, the one novelty of the Surface Laptop is the keyboard surround. Rather than bare metal or some kind of composite, Microsoft has covered it with Alcantara, a synthetic fabric. Microsoft has used Alcantara for keyboard surrounds before, as most of the new Surface Pro keyboards use it, for example. Alcantara is more commonly used in a range of automotive applications, such as to cover steering wheels. It's designed to be hard-wearing and tolerant of the sweat and grime that are features of this kind of use.

There's a chance that in three or four years I'll be proven wrong, but today the fabric strikes me as an entirely inappropriate choice for lining a laptop's interior. I've seen many disgusting-looking Alcantara Type Covers for Surface Pro 4, and after regular usage, they just get dirty and grimy and are impossible to clean. The Alcantara used in the Surface Laptop is supposed to be better—more resistant to dirt, easier to wipe down—but I simply don't buy it. Microsoft is positioning these systems as being perfect for a college kid to use for the duration of their four-year degree. Four years of eating at your computer, hands covered in Dorito debris as you're baked out of your mind (because hey, that's what college is all about). Four years of spilled drinks. Four years of sweating because it's summer and your AC is busted. Four years of browsing all of the Internet's multimedia delights. I just can't see these systems remaining clean and hygienic over those four years.

Still, the decision to use Alcantara is not entirely without its merits. Instead of the wrist-cutting hard metal edges that are common to so many laptops these days, the Alcantara is soft and comfortable. You can rest your forearms on the Laptop without discomfort. This is a good thing, but I feel that there are ways to achieve the same effect that don't require the use of a fabric interior. Dell uses a rubbery soft-touch paint, for example.

Internally, the Surface Laptop uses 7th generation Kaby Lake Intel Core processors. The i7 version includes Iris Plus graphics, so it should be faster than its mere clock speed would indicate thanks to the embedded memory on the processor. RAM starts at 4GB, which is frankly ludicrous in this day and age, though most models have a more reasonable 8GB or 16GB. Storage options are 128, 256, or 512GB of PCIe SSD. Surface Laptop performs in line with comparable Kaby Lake systems. Battery life is middle-of-the-road. Pricing, from £980 for the 4GB/128GB/i5 model up to £2,150 for 16GB/512GB/i7, is premium but roughly in the right ballpark.

While I don't think that Windows 10 S is perfect, I do broadly agree with the ideas behind it and support it in principle. But the reality is, the Windows Store does not have all the software I use or need, so I had to take advantage of the free upgrade to Windows 10 Pro. I think most people buying the Surface Laptop will have a similar experience. Even with Office and, later this year, iTunes in the Store, it's still too limiting a constraint.

But it's not 2012 any more

So... slim, good looks, good weight at a little under 3lbs, good keyboard, good touchpad, good screen. Why am I so down on Surface Laptop?

If Microsoft had released this thing back in 2012, back when it launched the original Surface RT, it would've been a fantastic laptop. PC laptops weren't very good then. They tended to be ugly, badly built, laden with crapware. Little thought or care seemed to go into their design and construction. The occasional good machine could still be found, but by and large, if you wanted a great portable computer around that time, you had to buy one with an Apple logo on the lid.

Against that backdrop, Surface Laptop would have been a breath of fresh air; a way of showing that laptops could look good, have good input and output, and have long battery life. Microsoft would have unveiled a better MacBook Air.

But the PC OEMs have stepped up their game since then, and the MacBook Air is no longer the platonic ideal of what an ultraportable laptop should be. Most notably, Dell and HP have both realised that there's a market for good machines, and systems like Dell's XPS 13 and HP's Spectre range are well made, attractive, and desirable. Mercifully, it's not 2012 any more for computer buyers. Nailing the basics—screen, keyboard, touchpad, battery life, size, and weight—is no longer enough to make a system a good laptop. Today, that stuff is just table stakes. You have to go above and beyond to stand out.

The Surface Laptop doesn't really do this. Take its connectivity, for example. Surface Laptop disappointingly takes after the new Surface Pro: it has a single USB 3.1 generation 1 (5 Gbit/s) Type-A port, a mini-DisplayPort port, a headset jack, and the proprietary Surface Connect port used for both charging and to connect Microsoft's Dock. That is to say, there is no USB Type-C and no Thunderbolt 3 on a machine that, let's not forget, Microsoft reckons will be useful for at least four years.

There's no shortage of room on the Surface Laptop. Doing a good implementation of Thunderbolt 3 and USB Type-C isn't trivial; there's engineering work to do to ensure that desirable properties, such as charging using any Type-C port, are implemented properly. But the challenge is not insurmountable. Other PC manufacturers are doing it. Why isn't Microsoft? Yes, Type-C and Thunderbolt 3 are still in their relative infancy. There isn't an abundance of devices out there, but there are interesting applications for Thunderbolt 3—single cable connectivity to monitors delivering both picture to the monitor and charging power back to the laptop, docking stations, and external GPUs. It's likely that Thunderbolt 3 devices will only grow more widespread over this system's four-year lifetime.

Similarly, while on the one hand PC OEMs are concerned about the user experience if a laptop is accidentally charged from a smartphone charger—something made possible by USB Type-C—I feel this concern is misplaced. It's true that the laptop will charge much more slowly from a 5W smartphone charger than a 35 or 60W laptop charger. It may not even be able to charge at all unless sleeping, merely treading water draining its battery as fast as it charges while turned on. But you know what? It'll still charge faster from a 5W smartphone charger than it will from no charger at all because you've left it on your desk at work. A world in which every laptop's charger is compatible, and where you can use a phone charger at a pinch, is a world I want to live in.

Certainly, it would be great if manufacturers could come up with, say, a clear labelling system indicating the output power of their chargers. Windows could probably be a little more informative about any slow charging situations, too. But Type-C represents opportunity and an improved user experience if done thoughtfully and carefully. Other companies are already doing this well, but Microsoft isn't even trying.

I agree with you on the usb-c. It just shows a complete lack of leadership by Microsoft. Hell they could keep the usb-a port and replace the mini-DP with usb-c which can handle data, video, and power triple duties.

On a side note you usually can not charge a laptop with a phone charger. The 5W to 15W chargers are only required to support 5V output and the laptop is probably going to require 15V or 20V. So it won't charge at all. It won't cause any problems it just won't do anything.

The reverse happily works just fine though. A 60W+ usb-c charger will support 5V, 9V, 15V, and 20V outputs so your laptop charger in theory could charge your laptop, you phone, your friend's laptop, your tablet, your nintendo switch, and hopefully someday every single consumer electronic device you own.

Peter Bright about the Surface laptop: "it's just a laptop, pointless".

That said though, I don't actually disagree with this review. This is a well made, conservatively designed laptop without anything big to recommend it and with one rather baffling design decision (fabric body).

This is clearly a good laptop though, so I'm sure it will do well: if the MBA is still considered par (if no longer an aspirational device), it's better than that at least (I have an MBA, btw).

For me personally though, the normal Surface Pro remains the absolute perfect device. Of my three portable computers it's the only one I actually bought and easily my favourite to use.

I appreciate the key message, but I'm wondering about the validity of the competition message...

If you want a well built laptop with a decent high resolution 3:2 panel (rather than the annoying 16:9 ones most OEMs offer), with a great keyboard and a usable precision trackpad, which alternatives are there to Microsoft?

The thing is, in my opinion for a laptop the core functionality is sturdiness, the screen, keyboard and trackpad. I'd argue that unless you get those things right, ports and internal specs are pretty much irrelevant. And I'm wondering which alternatives REALLY get that basis as right as Microsoft today.

Why does everything need to be chockful of techno-geek gimmicks that the average person neither wants nor will use? Many people want just a laptop not a geek toy.

It's the same with edge-to-edge screens, thin bezels, glass backs, etc. Sure those make great checkboxes on a spec sheet for people to argue over, but does the average consumer actually care?

Laptops generally have more real estate and unlike your phone, you are likely to hold from the bottom and not the top, so thin bezels or edge to edge screens can really benefit almost any laptop. My Dell XPS 13 is a great laptop with great battery life, generally good speakers and a pretty good keyboard. The trackpad is a tad too sensitive.

Oh and the Dell XPS 13 is cheaper and comes with more RAM.

They aren't gimmicks if they don't interfere with usability. You could argue that glass on the body of a laptop is a tad unnecessary, but useful features like front firing speakers or edge displays can make a huge benefit to average consumers in utility.

What is it with the Windows 10 S with upgrade to Pro idea? This is a $1000 computer - it doesn't seem very logical to be spending that much on something you only plan to browse the web with - and for that matter using Windows' least popular browser (Not to knock it; I use Edge myself, but it tends not to be people's first choice).

I can only guess this is Microsoft's effort to see just how many people actually bother to upgrade when it's free? I feel like they're not going to see as satisfying results as they'd like - I would bet every demographic they're targeting with this laptop will need the Pro in some form.

Why does everything need to be chockful of techno-geek gimmicks that the average person neither wants nor will use? Many people want just a laptop not a geek toy.

It's the same with edge-to-edge screens, thin bezels, glass backs, etc. Sure those make great checkboxes on a spec sheet for people to argue over, but does the average consumer actually care?

Laptops generally have more real estate and unlike your phone, you are likely to hold from the bottom and not the top, so thin bezels or edge to edge screens can really benefit almost any laptop. My Dell XPS 13 is a great laptop with great battery life, generally good speakers and a pretty good keyboard. The trackpad is a tad too sensitive.

Oh and the Dell XPS 13 is cheaper and comes with more RAM.

They aren't gimmicks if they don't interfere with usability. You could argue that glass on the body of a laptop is a tad unnecessary, but useful features like front firing speakers or edge displays can make a huge benefit to average consumers in utility.

You're being overly literal with my post. Those things I mentioned were analogies to how Ron, for example, complains that a phone has a design that looks like "last year" (heaven forfend!!) if it doesn't have all the design gimmicks du jour.

So to be more on point to this article how many of the average consumers care more about their laptop "exploring new form factors and designs" versus having solid, functional laptop basics? I'm pretty confident most care for the latter not the former.

This is why technogeeks still don't understand why Apple is so successful despite not always being bleeding edge or cramming the spec sheet with gimmicks.

Battery life is where I find a lot of laptops lack. If real world use is 7-almost 10 hours I guess it's good enough. Most of them tout up to 6 hours etc, but really get like 2 at best on their two cell battery.

I had a samsung QX411 back in the day touting a 6 cell lithium polymer battery. Even with a gen 2 i5 processor I could get 7+ hours out of it of normal use. If I did not game and just browsed the web etc, I could get 10+ hours. https://www.notebookcheck.net/Samsung-Q ... 232.0.html

I think manufacturers are more focused on weight or plain keeping the price down. A ton of these new laptops comes with 23WH battery and weigh near 5lb still. This battery is above average and near the top end you can get default with your laptops. If the battery is replaceable sometimes the mfg provides a larger extended battery that sticks out.

Someone was lamenting about short battery life bringing this on my radar again. I tried to find them what I call a 'mac book clone' and was a bit shocked to see this lower WH batteries in everything. Even the premiums were not having batteries near 40WH (What i would think it needs to be to be close to my old laptop for battery life). I am not in the market for a new laptop but if I did this is pretty important to me. I just feel like the MFG's did surveys and people said they cared about being light weight and max 5 hours battery life but were OK with 3.

Spec wise it should make 3-5 hours with the new power sipping hardware, but if you have any graphics card at all you will game a bit and it will drain the battery quick. Even these did not have huge battery capacities like you would want except the dell xps 5000. If you get that your full gaming, that's a problem if your looking for a middle ground and just want 10 hour battery life.

Peter Bright about the Surface laptop: "it's just a laptop, pointless".

That said though, I don't actually disagree with this review. This is a well made, conservatively designed laptop without anything big to recommend it and with one rather baffling design decision (fabric body).

This is clearly a good laptop though, so I'm sure it will do well: if the MBA is still considered par (if no longer an aspirational device), it's better than that at least (I have an MBA, btw).

For me personally though, the normal Surface Pro remains the absolute perfect device. Of my three portable computers it's the only one I actually bought and easily my favourite to use.

I find myself agreeing with the review overall as well. It's a nice laptop, but what does it do better than similar laptops?

Also, for what it's worth, this thing is utterly non-repairable. If something goes wrong, you'll have to send it in to Microsoft. There is nothing inside even remotely fixable.

This makes Microsoft's latest offering an easier sell than the other Surface hardware. Potential buyers don't need to learn and understand how a new kind of device will fit into their lives, because they already know how they use laptops. As such, I expect sales will be vigorous.

I guess they're _trying_ to appeal to the audience that hated on the new MacBooks because USB-C and nothing else. This seems like a decent laptop for those who need to work a fair bit with legacy stuff, and honestly, I think it'll be perfectly workable for the next few years.

Not remotely forward-looking, and IMO not overly well executed. The fabric was kinda dumb, and they went too far in the direction of normal.

This makes Microsoft's latest offering an easier sell than the other Surface hardware. Potential buyers don't need to learn and understand how a new kind of device will fit into their lives, because they already know how they use laptops. As such, I expect sales will be vigorous.

Doesn't really seem THAT baffling..

Yeah, it's almost as if the audience is the average consumer not a gadget geek. How baffling!

Why does everything need to be chockful of techno-geek gimmicks that the average person neither wants nor will use? Many people want just a laptop not a geek toy.

It's the same with edge-to-edge screens, thin bezels, glass backs, etc. Sure those make great checkboxes on a spec sheet for people to argue over, but does the average consumer actually care?

Some of those 'gimmicks' are real tech.

Of course most people want 'just a laptop', but if you can have features without adding cost or weight or hurting battery life, why wouldn't you? The other OEMs did just that. Yoga is years old. Apple added USB-C to a smaller laptop 2 years ago. AR is Microsoft's big deal talking point and works better on MS's own Surface Pro. It's a baffling product in that sense.

Why does everything need to be chockful of techno-geek gimmicks that the average person neither wants nor will use? Many people want just a laptop not a geek toy.

It's the same with edge-to-edge screens, thin bezels, glass backs, etc. Sure those make great checkboxes on a spec sheet for people to argue over, but does the average consumer actually care?

Laptops generally have more real estate and unlike your phone, you are likely to hold from the bottom and not the top, so thin bezels or edge to edge screens can really benefit almost any laptop. My Dell XPS 13 is a great laptop with great battery life, generally good speakers and a pretty good keyboard. The trackpad is a tad too sensitive.

Oh and the Dell XPS 13 is cheaper and comes with more RAM.

They aren't gimmicks if they don't interfere with usability. You could argue that glass on the body of a laptop is a tad unnecessary, but useful features like front firing speakers or edge displays can make a huge benefit to average consumers in utility.

You're being overly literal with my post. Those things I mentioned were analogies to how Ron, for example, complains that a phone has a design that looks like "last year" (heaven forfend!!) if it doesn't have all gimmicks du jour.

So to be more on point to this article how many of the average consumers care more about their laptop "exploring new form factors and designs" versus having solid, functional laptop basics? I'm pretty confident most care for the latter not the former.

One could argue that if something is priced as high as this machine is, it better be competitive with similarly priced machines.

Outside of the display, what makes this device stand out? The Microsoft logo on the back? The alcanterra keyboard deck?

You could say that the keyboard deck design is a huge gimmick and a fabric material is horrible for long term use when you have to constantly place your palms against it during interaction with the machine.

As for Apples success, they consistently build good products and market the shit out of them. That leads to big sales. We have to remember that Dell and HP use to focus heavily on low margin products. Since Dell went private and HP started adapting, we saw this move away from hollow plastic bargain products in favour of premium designed products, regardless of price point. The issue now? Mindset. They are known for making trash. They have to change that perception. How do you do that? Make something like the Dell XPS 13. Make something like the HP Spectre. Now the game is marketing.

Why does everything need to be chockful of techno-geek gimmicks that the average person neither wants nor will use? Many people want just a laptop not a geek toy.

It's the same with edge-to-edge screens, thin bezels, glass backs, etc. Sure those make great checkboxes on a spec sheet for people to argue over, but does the average consumer actually care?

Some of those 'gimmicks' are real tech.

Of course most people want 'just a laptop', but if you can have features without adding cost or weight or hurting battery life, why wouldn't you? The other OEMs did just that. Yoga is years old. Apple added USB-C to a smaller laptop 2 years ago. AR is Microsoft's big deal talking point and works better on MS's own Surface Pro. It's a baffling product in that sense.

Because those added features I neither want nor will use are just one more failure point. Just because gimmicks are crammed in for no additional cost doesn't mean they are worth anything. It's great that you value the everything-and-the-kitchen-sink, but not everyone else does.

"a plain old laptop""the least compelling, least interesting piece of hardware""HP, Dell, and Lenovo are doing more to make PC hardware better, to make Windows 10""it has already been left behind by the rest of the market""the fabric strikes me as an entirely inappropriate choice""Even with Office and, later this year, iTunes in the Store, it's still too limiting a constraint.""Other companies are already doing this well, but Microsoft isn't even trying.""it's also not a strong showcase for Windows 10.""You have to grab the lid to try to steady it and stop the whole thing wobbling and moving.""weak compared to its competition""I can't imagine buying a Surface Laptop."

Two non-techy guys just got them at my office for personal use. They both are used to using Macbook Airs in the past, but decided to go with Surface Laptop for whatever reason.

Both of them have since admitted to loving the touch screen. One of them caught himself embarrassed as he tried to touch his desktop screen in order to zoom into to something on the screen.

Both of them had a conversation with everyone else about how they love the laptop and really like having the touchscreen, and both of them said it makes the Macbooks feel inferior...one guy was actually shocked that the newest Macbook's didn't have a touchscreen. When I explained that the Macbook had a touch bar they were incredulous.

So I have a feeling Peter is right and they will sell well with the general public.

Mr. Bright, you're investing too much sentiment in something that isn't worth it, yet(USB-C). I'm sorry but it seems forced. I doubt 5 years from now USB-C will gather much steam. TB is already gimped from a connector type switch and from the uncertainty of its presence on a USB-C device. Furthermore, eGPUs are a smaller niche than SLI/Crossfire setups.

People used to say this jokingly about USB-A, but it's actually USB-C that's Schroedinger's port.

eGPU's I predict will be on the rise, and soon.

I myself am looking for a new laptop. Even at this early stage, an eGPU just about makes enough economic sense. For example, you can get a Razer Blade Stealth laptop for $900. Tack on a Core for $500 and a GTX 1060 $210. That brings your total price to $1610.

Compare that to a Razer Blade laptop. It starts at $1900.

Sure, they're not directly comparable, they're different form factors, and the Stealth has a weaker CPU. But you can still play the latest games sitting at your desk, and the Stealth has the advantage of being ultraportable for on-the-go usage. Even at the $500 price point, an eGPU is worth consideration. If they come down to $250 and are usable with other manufacturer's laptops, I can see them becoming quite popular.

I appreciate Microsoft's attempt to make up for their Windows 10's disastrous marketing campaign. However, it makes no sense to spend $1000 on a stripped-down oversized netbook (which is essentially what the Surface Laptop is), when you can buy an actual laptop from Dell or Toshiba for about half that. Even a Chromebook is cheaper.

Sure, you'll have bloatware, but that's fairly easy to remove and clean up the system drive. It might take you a few hours, yet your laptop will thank you for the optimization. I suppose that you could buy a Surface Laptop and manually replace the Windows 10 S with whatever OS you prefer, but again for the same amount of money you can have a custom-build that has way better specs. (This also presumes that the processor and hardware isn't designed solely for Windows 10.)

What they're offering is nice... but not worth the money, considering the market they're aiming for. I wouldn't buy it, either.

usb port singular. If Apple had released a $2200 laptop with a single usb port it would be laughed. The fact that Microsoft did the same and without usb-c, TB3, and a proprietary powersupply plus a locked down app store only OS should be met with similar derision.

I think Peter's summary was on point. This would be an amazing laptop if released in 2012. In 2017 it is overly expensive and under specced.

I believe you are way too harsh with criticisms. Yes, it is just a laptop, and it shouldn't be just a laptop, but it isn't a bad one. This thingy has a great screen all around + is 3:2 + pen support, fine keyboard, touchpad, battery etc. Ports are meh, but not that horrible - at least USB-A is there. It "just" misses something extra.All other OEM devices have their own pluses and minuses as well. For example the classic XPS13 has much better port selection, but smaller screen without pen support and nostril webcam.

Really, the only big problem is lack of 360deg hinge. Pen would shine in this scenario and it would make a very interesting addition to the Surface lineup. Now it makes for a very puzzling addition to the lineup.

Sure, the purpose is to demonstrate Windows 10 S, which has the main purpose to prepare folks for Windows 10 Arm. But the device would still need to do something beyond just a laptop.

Put me down as an oldie but my world still requires good old HDMI to connect my laptop to the TV and sound system...which is happy with HDMI input from a computer. I see no mention of this machine coming with a Display port to HDMI adapter but I imagine there are such things out there.

Mr. Bright, you're investing too much sentiment in something that isn't worth it, yet(USB-C). I'm sorry but it seems forced. I doubt 5 years from now USB-C will gather much steam. TB is already gimped from a connector type switch and from the uncertainty of its presence on a USB-C device. Furthermore, eGPUs are a smaller niche than SLI/Crossfire setups.

People used to say this jokingly about USB-A, but it's actually USB-C that's Schroedinger's port.

TB3 may be niche in five year. I doubt it once it becomes standard in all Intel CPUs but even if true usb-c won't be.

Why would you want a proprietary power supply? Would you buy happier if cellphones went back to model specific proprietary power supplies? Why wouldn't you want a non-reversible usb connector? If you forgot to charge you cellphone why wouldn't you want the flexibility of using your laptop charger?

Granted in the near term a laptop with only usb-c isn't desirable either due to legacy devices but what exactly would you lose from a laptop that has say two usb-a ports and two usb-c ports (which are triple duty data, video, and power)? For a 13" class laptop maybe just one of each.

Mr. Bright, you're investing too much sentiment in something that isn't worth it, yet(USB-C). I'm sorry but it seems forced. I doubt 5 years from now USB-C will gather much steam. TB is already gimped from a connector type switch and from the uncertainty of its presence on a USB-C device. Furthermore, eGPUs are a smaller niche than SLI/Crossfire setups.

People used to say this jokingly about USB-A, but it's actually USB-C that's Schroedinger's port.

eGPU's I predict will be on the rise, and soon.

I myself am looking for a new laptop. Even at this early stage, an eGPU just about makes enough economic sense. For example, you can get a Razer Blade Stealth laptop for $900. Tack on a Core for $500 and a GTX 1060 $210. That brings your total price to $1610.

Compare that to a Razer Blade laptop. It starts at $1900.

Sure, they're not directly comparable, they're different form factors, and the Stealth has a weaker CPU. But you can still play the latest games sitting at your desk, and the Stealth has the advantage of being ultraportable for on-the-go usage. Even at the $500 price point, an eGPU is worth consideration. If they come down to $250 and are usable with other manufacturer's laptops, I can see them becoming quite popular.

Why would you use that? If you want to play games at your desk, you have your gaming PC, or your console. Both cheaper and faster than an eGPU solution, and as portable (= not at all). You don't need to even plug in anything, just get in front of device and start playing.

If that box was 100$ maybe I could see it getting somewhere. The whole dGPU+box with console-like performance for console-like price. At 250-500? Absolutely pointless.

Put me down as an oldie but my world still requires good old HDMI to connect my laptop to the TV and sound system...which is happy with HDMI input from a computer. I see no mention of this machine coming with a Display port to HDMI adapter but I imagine there are such things out there.

Ya they do, but you basically have to carry it everywhere you intend to use another screen since most don't have mini display ports anyways. I have seen adapters that do HDMI, DVI, and VGA all in one.

I think this is an interesting product, because it tells us a bit more about where Microsoft thinks the market is going in the future.

It really wasn't long ago that many tech "journalists" were annoucing the impending death of the laptop, with tablets and mobile outselling them at high rates. However, sales for laptops have remained fairly robust and (at least for now) they seem to be the preferred hardware for doing work.

I think this product is actually an acknowledgement from Microsoft that the mobile/convertible products don't cover enough of the market, and that laptops have continued to be popular despite the expectations of many. I also 100% agree with the prediction that this product will outsell all of the others.

Mr. Bright, you're investing too much sentiment in something that isn't worth it, yet(USB-C). I'm sorry but it seems forced. I doubt 5 years from now USB-C will gather much steam. TB is already gimped from a connector type switch and from the uncertainty of its presence on a USB-C device. Furthermore, eGPUs are a smaller niche than SLI/Crossfire setups.

People used to say this jokingly about USB-A, but it's actually USB-C that's Schroedinger's port.

eGPU's I predict will be on the rise, and soon.

I myself am looking for a new laptop. Even at this early stage, an eGPU just about makes enough economic sense. For example, you can get a Razer Blade Stealth laptop for $900. Tack on a Core for $500 and a GTX 1060 $210. That brings your total price to $1610.

Compare that to a Razer Blade laptop. It starts at $1900.

Sure, they're not directly comparable, they're different form factors, and the Stealth has a weaker CPU. But you can still play the latest games sitting at your desk, and the Stealth has the advantage of being ultraportable for on-the-go usage. Even at the $500 price point, an eGPU is worth consideration. If they come down to $250 and are usable with other manufacturer's laptops, I can see them becoming quite popular.

Why would you use that? If you want to play games at your desk, you have your gaming PC, or your console. Both cheaper and faster than an eGPU solution, and as portable (= not at all). You don't need to even plug in anything, just get in front of device and start playing.

If that box was 100$ maybe I could see it getting somewhere. The whole dGPU+box with console-like performance for console-like price. At 250-500? Absolutely pointless.

The example was pretty bad. I agree an eGPU enclosure at $500 makes little sense. The good news is they are approaching $200 . Right now there is a GTX 1070 bundled with enclosure for $600 which makes the enclosure ~$150 and it will charge your laptop as well. A barebones enclosure of $100 will probably happen within a year. The eGPU enclosure really isn't that complex. It is a small form factor ATX PSU, case, and TB3 to PCIe circuit board.

Still horribly bad example from the prior post. At $500 for an enclosure eGPU is at best a horribly overpriced novelty. When you can add GTX 1070 level performance to an ultrabook for $600 that is a little different.

This makes Microsoft's latest offering an easier sell than the other Surface hardware. Potential buyers don't need to learn and understand how a new kind of device will fit into their lives, because they already know how they use laptops. As such, I expect sales will be vigorous.

Doesn't really seem THAT baffling..

Why is Microsoft competing with its OEM partners in this case? With the Surface it was to show there was a market for a different type of laptop. With this new laptop? It doesn't do anything their partners aren't already doing.

I think it's overpriced. There are plenty of cheap thin laptops on the market what does this one do at $1299 that other $799 or even $599 thin laptops can't do? There many macbook air clones for $600. This one doesn't even have a decent gaming GPU so there's even less reasons I would buy one.

Mr. Bright, you're investing too much sentiment in something that isn't worth it, yet(USB-C). I'm sorry but it seems forced. I doubt 5 years from now USB-C will gather much steam. TB is already gimped from a connector type switch and from the uncertainty of its presence on a USB-C device. Furthermore, eGPUs are a smaller niche than SLI/Crossfire setups.

People used to say this jokingly about USB-A, but it's actually USB-C that's Schroedinger's port.

eGPU's I predict will be on the rise, and soon.

I myself am looking for a new laptop. Even at this early stage, an eGPU just about makes enough economic sense. For example, you can get a Razer Blade Stealth laptop for $900. Tack on a Core for $500 and a GTX 1060 $210. That brings your total price to $1610.

Compare that to a Razer Blade laptop. It starts at $1900.

Sure, they're not directly comparable, they're different form factors, and the Stealth has a weaker CPU. But you can still play the latest games sitting at your desk, and the Stealth has the advantage of being ultraportable for on-the-go usage. Even at the $500 price point, an eGPU is worth consideration. If they come down to $250 and are usable with other manufacturer's laptops, I can see them becoming quite popular.

Why would you use that? If you want to play games at your desk, you have your gaming PC, or your console. Both cheaper and faster than an eGPU solution, and as portable (= not at all). You don't need to even plug in anything, just get in front of device and start playing.

If that box was 100$ maybe I could see it getting somewhere. The whole dGPU+box with console-like performance for console-like price. At 250-500? Absolutely pointless.

"You have your gaming PC"

I think that's where you've lost me. Not everyone that games has or wants a desktop. Some people want a laptop. Some people want a single machine they can easily take with them, yet still game at home. That's where laptops come in. And as I've pointed out, an ultraportable laptop combined with an eGPU is becoming increasingly practical and economical.

And not everyone wants a console either. Consoles are great, I've got a couple of Xbox One's myself. But I can't easily take an Xbox One to a coffee shop, download my Steam library onto it, upgrade the GPU, do my taxes, sign mortgage documents, do an Excel budget spreadsheet, or answer email.

I'm thinking this is Microsoft testing the market. I also have a suspicion that, combined with 365, this could be the start of a full enterprise package from Microsoft. Not only 'cloud' services, but direct hardware supply and support. I do wish Ars would consider the importance of enterprise computing once in a while, because thats what I see when I look at this. Surfaces are everywhere in the business sector, less so the consumer market.

Mr. Bright, you're investing too much sentiment in something that isn't worth it, yet(USB-C). I'm sorry but it seems forced. I doubt 5 years from now USB-C will gather much steam. TB is already gimped from a connector type switch and from the uncertainty of its presence on a USB-C device. Furthermore, eGPUs are a smaller niche than SLI/Crossfire setups.

People used to say this jokingly about USB-A, but it's actually USB-C that's Schroedinger's port.

eGPU's I predict will be on the rise, and soon.

I myself am looking for a new laptop. Even at this early stage, an eGPU just about makes enough economic sense. For example, you can get a Razer Blade Stealth laptop for $900. Tack on a Core for $500 and a GTX 1060 $210. That brings your total price to $1610.

Compare that to a Razer Blade laptop. It starts at $1900.

Sure, they're not directly comparable, they're different form factors, and the Stealth has a weaker CPU. But you can still play the latest games sitting at your desk, and the Stealth has the advantage of being ultraportable for on-the-go usage. Even at the $500 price point, an eGPU is worth consideration. If they come down to $250 and are usable with other manufacturer's laptops, I can see them becoming quite popular.

Why would you use that? If you want to play games at your desk, you have your gaming PC, or your console. Both cheaper and faster than an eGPU solution, and as portable (= not at all). You don't need to even plug in anything, just get in front of device and start playing.

If that box was 100$ maybe I could see it getting somewhere. The whole dGPU+box with console-like performance for console-like price. At 250-500? Absolutely pointless.

The example was pretty bad. I agree an eGPU enclosure at $500 makes little sense. The good news is they are approaching $200 and honestly I think $150 is going to happen pretty soon. Right now there is a GTX 1070 bundled with enclosure for $600 which makes the enclosure ~$150 and it comes with some bells and whistles. A barebones enclosure of $100 will probably happen within a year.

Still horribly bad example from the prior post. At $500 for an enclosure it is a horribly overpriced novelty.

Please point out how it was a bad example. I was pointing out the current state of eGPU's. And I pointed out how it can cost less to a semi-comparable traditional gaming laptop. If you disagree with the comparison, feel free to point out why. Just saying "it's horrible" while ignoring the comparison doesn't make for a good discussion.